Console and network errors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key non-obvious trait: listeners attach before navigation, so load-time errors are captured. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not detail edge cases like timeouts or unreachable pages.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and outputs are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the crucial listener-timing detail. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers the main invocation need and return content. It lacks explicit output-format details or failure behavior, and there is no output schema to compensate, but the core usage is adequately specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'url' and 'viewport'. The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: load a page and report console errors, uncaught exceptions, and failed requests. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'capture', which implies visual capture rather than diagnostic reporting.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by the title and description: use this tool when you need to detect page-load errors, exceptions, or failed requests. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling 'capture' tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.